APPENDIX I

The Moray Council Public Consultation: Land at Bogton Road, Forres

Report

Chris Thornton Craigforth February 2011

INTRODUCTION

1.

INTRODUCTION
Consultation Process

1.1.

The consultation was undertaken following an approach to The Moray Council by a developer - Redco Milne - with regard to acquiring land at Bogton Road in Forres as part of a proposed retail development. The land at Bogton Road is part of the Forres Common Good Fund, which is administered by the Council with regards to the people of Forres and is for example used to provide grants for community-based organisations. The land also includes Mosset Park which is currently occupied by Forres Mechanics Football Club. Any sale of land would require vacant possession of Mosset Park to be obtained by terminating the informal lease with the football club. In this context The Moray Council commissioned Craigforth as independent researchers to undertake consultation to gauge the views of Forres residents on the potential sale of Common Good land at Bogton Road in Forres. The consultation was not seeking views on the content of any planning application relating to the land - which was handled through a separate consultation process but rather to gather views on options relating to the land. The consultation was based primarily on a postal self-completion method, with consultation packs issued to all residential properties in the Forres settlement area. The packs comprised a short cover letter, 2 page consultation form, and reply paid envelope for return direct to Craigforth. Residents were also given the option to submit their consultation response via the internet, with details provided in the cover letter issued with the consultation pack. The consultation form provided background information relating to the proposed sale of land and the Forres Common Good Fund, and asked residents to indicate their support for one of three options identified by councillors in relation to the proposed sale of land at Bogton Road. These three options are set out below: 1. Against sale to Redco Milne, and instead offer a new lease of Mosset Park to the football club on appropriate terms. 2. Proceed with sale of land to Redco Milne on terms to be agreed and approved, with no assistance offered to the football club. 3. Proceed with sale of land to Redco Milne on terms to be agreed and approved, with assistance offered to the football club. Any financial assistance would be paid from the Common Good fund.

1.2.

1.3.

1.4.

1.5.

1.6.

The consultation form also gave residents an opportunity to add written comments to supplement their preferred option. A copy of the consultation form is appended to this report.

Public Consultation: Land at Bogton Road, Forres Report by Craigforth: February 2011

INTRODUCTION

1.7.

To ensure that the consultation reached all households resident within the Forres settlement area, it was necessary to base the consultation on an extract from the Councils address gazetteer. The gazetteer offers complete coverage of Forres households (which cannot be achieved through the edited Electoral Register), but does not include residents names or an indication of the number of residents at each address. As a result it was not possible to vary the number of consultation forms issued to each address to match the number of residents. To ensure the robustness of the consultation process the approach taken was to issue a single consultation form to all Forres addresses, and offer a suitable mechanism for households to make more than one response where the household includes multiple adults. Households were able to request additional hard copies of the consultation form (using Craigforths freephone), or could make additional responses via the online consultation form. It was recognised that this approach required additional security measures to ensure that consultation findings could not be unduly influenced by individuals making multiple consultation responses. The key security measure was to assign each residential property a unique reference number for the purposes of the consultation, against which all responses by a household could be matched. Individuals responding via the internet were required to enter their reference number before completing the consultation form, and similarly where households requested additional copies of consultation materials these were issued with the relevant unique ID. This referencing system was used to collate responses against relevant reference numbers and in this way identify where multiple responses had been made by a single household. As an additional security check, where multiple responses had been received these were cross-referenced against the edited Electoral Register to ensure that the number of responses did not exceed the number of individuals registered to the address. Where the number of responses did exceed the number of individuals registered to the address, responses were weighted to take account of the discrepancy. Response and Statistical Robustness

1.8.

1.9.

1.10.

1.11.

Consultation packs were issued to a total of 4681 addresses on 5 January 2011. In addition, 17 households requested further copies of the consultation form taking the total number of consultation packs issued to 4700. By close of the consultation in early February a total of 1718 responses had been received. Measured against the total of 4700 consultation packs issued this represents an overall response rate of 37%, a very strong response for this kind of public consultation. Verification procedures identified a number of responses which could not be fully accepted to the consultation: 1 online response which did not match to any of the reference numbers against which consultation packs had been issued this response was disregarded; and

1.12.

1.13.

Public Consultation: Land at Bogton Road, Forres Report by Craigforth: February 2011

INTRODUCTION

7 addresses where the number of responses exceeded the number of adults registered to that address. These responses were weighted to take account of the discrepancy.1
1.14.

Taking into account the above changes, analysis presented in this report is based on 1706 valid responses, equivalent to a response rate of 36%. As figure 1 below indicates, the great majority of these were postal responses. Figure 1: Consultation Responses by Method (total 1706)

156 Online, 9% of total

1550 Postal, 91% of total

1.15.

In terms of the robustness of findings for any consultation or survey, it is the volume of responses received that is most important rather than the percentage response per se. In this regard the total of 1706 responses provides a very robust basis for consultation analysis. Confidence intervals are the standard means of assessing the extent to which we can be sure that survey results are representative. On the basis of 1706 responses the maximum 95% confidence interval for overall consultation findings is +/-2.4%. As an example this means that if 50% of all respondents support one of the three options, we can be 95% confident that the true value is between 47.6% and 52.4%. It should be noted that the confidence intervals noted above do not take account of any bias in the profile of response to the consultation, for example the extent to which some socio-demographic groups account for a large proportion of responses than is consistent with the wider profile of the Forres population. An assessment of response across broad postcode areas within Forres suggests there has been no significant geographical bias in response. However, data is not available to support a more detailed assessment of the profile of response. The remainder of this report provides a detailed analysis of consultation findings. This is presented in relation to support for the three proposed options (section 2), and also as an overview of the main themes and arguments emerging from supplementary comments made through the consultation (section 3).

1.16.

1.17.

1.18.

Subsequent to the production of this report, and on the instruction of the Council Craigforth have written to these 7 addresses to clarify the number of persons at each address. Public Consultation: Land at Bogton Road, Forres Report by Craigforth: February 2011 3

SUPPORT FOR OPTIONS RELATING TO THE SALE OF LAND

2.
2.1.

SUPPORT FOR OPTIONS

A key element of the consultation was to gauge the extent of support amongst Forres residents of three options identified by councillors in relation to the potential sale of Common Good Land at Bogton Road. The three options indicate whether residents support the proposed sale of land to Redco Milne (option1 being opposed to, and options 2 and 3 in support of the sale), and also whether assistance should be provided to Forres Mechanics Football Club if the sale of land proceeds (option 2 being opposed to, and option 3 in favour of assistance being provided). Option 1 also indicates that a new lease will be offered to the club on appropriate terms. The options are set out in full at Figure 2 below. As Figure 2 indicates, a large majority of those responding to the consultation were opposed to the proposed sale of land to Redco Milne 70% of respondents supported option 1. This was by some margin the most commonly supported option, with 29% indicating support for the proposed sale of land to Redco Milne (options 2 or 3). A further 1% of respondents indicated no clear preference in relation to the 3 options. In relation to Forres Mechanics Football Club, the majority of those supporting the proposed sale of land indicated that assistance should be provided to the football club in finding alternative facilities if the sale of land proceeds. Indeed 86% of those in favour of the proposed sale of land supported the provision of assistance to the club (25% of all respondents), with 14% opposed (4% of all respondents).

2.2.

2.3.

2.4.

Figure 2: Preferred option for proposed sale of land at Bogton Road, Forres
Num Option 1 Against sale to Redco Milne, and instead offer a new lease of Mosset Park to the football club on appropriate terms Option 2 Proceed with sale of land to Redco Milne on terms to be agreed and approved, with no assistance offered to the football club Option 3 Proceed with sale of land to Redco Milne on terms to be agreed and approved, with assistance offered to the football club. Any financial assistance would be paid from the Common Good fund No preference indicated Base 1188 % 70%

71

4%

429 18 1706

25% 1%

Public Consultation: Land at Bogton Road, Forres Report by Craigforth: February 2011

SUPPORT FOR OPTIONS RELATING TO THE SALE OF LAND

Option 3, 25% Option 2, 4%

No preference indicated, 1%

Option 1, 70%

Statistical Reliability
2.5.

As is noted in the previous section, the volume of responses received to the consultation means that results are highly robust. Statistical tests have been undertaken using 95% confidence limits, to assess the reliability of consultation results in terms of support for the three options.2 The table below sets out these limits. Table 1: Statistical robustness of findings 95% confidence limits
Consultation Results 95% confidence limits Upper 72.2% 4.9% 27.1% 1.5% Lower 67.8% 3.1% 22.9% 0.5% -

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 No preference indicated Base

70% 4% 25% 1% 1706

As is noted in the previous section, these tests are based solely on the level of response to the consultation and cannot take account of any potential bias in the profile of response. Public Consultation: Land at Bogton Road, Forres Report by Craigforth: February 2011 2

SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS

3.
3.1.

SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS
In addition to indicating support for one of the three options presented, the consultation form also invited respondents to add further comments on the specific reasons for their preferred option although in practice a number of individuals used the opportunity to raise wider issues which did not relate specifically to their preference for a specific option. This section of the report considers the key issues emerging through the full range of comments made through the consultation. A total of 734 individuals added written comments, representing a little over 40% of all consultation respondents. However the frequency of comments varied quite significantly dependent on respondents preferred option. In particular, those opposed to the proposed sale of land were more likely to add written comments (47% of those supporting option 1) than those in favour of the proposed sale of land (32% of those supporting options 2 or 3). This may reflect a particular strength of feeling amongst residents opposed to the proposed sale of land. Table 2: Proportion of respondents making supplementary comments
ALL respondents Those making comment % of all Num respondents 560 47% 17 141 16 734 24% 33% 89% 43%

3.2.

Respondents supporting Option 1 Respondents supporting Option 2 Respondents supporting Option 3 No preference indicated ALL 3.3.

1188 71 429 18 1706

All comments were coded into broad themes or issues as part of the consultation analysis process. Unsurprisingly there were significant differences in the issues raised by those supporting each of the three options, and in particular between those opposed to and those in favour of the proposed sale of land. In this context a different set of categories were used in the analysis of comments received by those supporting option 1, and those supporting options 2 and 3. It is interesting to note that comments received in relation to Forres Mechanics Football Club were less closely linked to support for a specific option. For example comments received from those in support of option 1 included views on the importance of the club to Forres and a need to protect the club from any negative impact, and also suggestions that the club should not receive any special treatment or support. To ensure consultation analysis accurately captured views on the football club and any potential sale of land, comments relating to the club have been considered irrespective of support for specific options - although significant differences in the balance of views between those in favour of or opposed to the proposed sale of land have been identified. Comments relating to the football club are considered separately at the end of this section.

3.4.

Public Consultation: Land at Bogton Road, Forres Report by Craigforth: February 2011

SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS

3.5.

Table 3 below shows the main issues identified through supplementary comments. These are split between those opposed to the proposed sale of land, those supporting the proposed sale of land, and comments made specifically in relation to Forres Mechanics Football Club. Several key issues emerged which were cited by a substantial proportion of those making comments, and which appear to be key reasons for individuals support for or opposition to the three options. Based on comments received, the most significant reasons for support or opposition to options appear to be: For those supporting option 1: The view that Forres does not need, would not benefit from and may not be able to sustain the kind of development proposed. This included specific reference to current availability of supermarkets and petrol stations in Forres, and concerns regarding the viability of non-food retail; Significant concern regarding the potential negative impact of a supermarket and/or retail development on existing businesses within Forres this included specific reference to a need to support and potentially regenerate Forres High Street; and A view that common good ground should be retained in the ownership of the Common Good Fund for the future benefit of Forres residents, rather than being used for what some referred to as one-off financial gain. For those supporting options 2 and 3: That the development is needed to help rejuvenate and modernise Forres. This included reference to offering residents greater choice and competition (in both supermarket and other retail), and also the potential for this kind of development to attract new residents to the area; and A view that any development of supermarket, non-food retail and/or other amenities should be welcomed as an opportunity to support the local economy and develop new employment opportunities. Table 3: Key points emerging through supplementary comments
Num
% of those making comment

3.6.

Those opposed to sale of land (Option 1) Forres does not need/cannot support this kind of development (e.g. supermarket, petrol station, non-food retail) Concern regarding the negative impact of a supermarket and/or retail development on existing businesses and Forres High Street Common good ground should be retained for the future benefit of residents, not used for one off financial gain Negative comments relating to the developer Comments relating to the consultation process Concerns regarding impact of development on infrastructure and other planning considerations Concern regarding the impact of development alongside the bypass on the appearance and perception of Forres Other comments Base (total respondents making comment)

214 213 103 42 40 31 27 102 734

29% 29% 14% 6% 5% 4% 4% 14%

Public Consultation: Land at Bogton Road, Forres Report by Craigforth: February 2011

SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS

Table 3: Key points emerging through supplementary comments (cont)

Num % of those making comment

Those in favour of sale of land (Options 2 & 3) Development will help to rejuvenate and modernise Forres greater choice and competition Development will help to support Forres economy, create new employment opportunities Football club should not be disadvantaged by any development, the developer should be required to meet all costs of relocating football club Other comments Football club related (irrespective of support for options1, 2 or 3) Comments relating to Forres Mechanics Football Club and proposed sale of land Base (total respondents making comment) 3.7.

57 51 46 36

7% 7% 6% 5%

151 734

21%

We discuss comments from those in favour of the three options in turn below. Those in support of option 1

3.8.

Two issues emerge as by some margin the most commonly cited reasons for respondents support of option 1. These were that Forres does not need/ cannot support the kind of development proposed, and that a retail related development would have a significant negative impact on existing businesses in Forres. Each of these issues were cited by around 30% of all those making comment through the consultation It is interesting to note that many respondents appear to see these issues as related to some extent, and indeed there is significant overlap of 40-50% in terms of individuals mentioning the two issues. As a result, around half of all those making comment mentioned one or both of these two issues. Looking first at the view that Forres does not need the kind of development being proposed, a substantial number of respondents suggested that Forres is adequately served considering the size of the towns population. These respondents clearly did not see any specific requirement for additional supermarket, petrol station and other retail provision. For some this was reflected in a suggestion that the development would be likely to result in the relocation of the existing Tesco store to the new site, rather than the creation of additional supermarket provision. It was also notable that a number of those supporting option 1 referred to other land uses (such as leisure or health facilities) for which they did see a pressing need in Forres. In addition to a perception that Forres had no requirement for the type of development proposed, a significant number of respondents expressed strong concerns that Forres would be unable to sustain the development. This concern was most commonly expressed in relation to the expected closure of RAF Kinloss and the wider economic climate (e.g. public sector cuts, rising unemployment). In this context some residents appeared to feel that any development would be unviable at present. The following quotation is representative of many comments on this issue, and particularly the strength of feeling expressed by some:

3.9.

3.10.

3.11.

Public Consultation: Land at Bogton Road, Forres Report by Craigforth: February 2011

SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS

[It is an] utterly ridiculous proposal to construct a retail park during a recession.
3.12.

A substantial number of those raising this issue also highlighted the risk of parts of the development remaining empty, typically in relation to non-food retail. In this regard, numerous references were made to recent retail developments in Elgin which remain part empty. Some respondents also linked this concern with the potential impact of the development on Forres high street; it was suggested that the number of empty retail units in Forres high street would increase further as a result of the development, potentially in relation to both supermarket and other retail premises. The strength of feeling expressed by some with regard to the risk of retail units remaining empty appears to reflect in part a wider view that the proposed development is not consistent with Forres as a small beautiful market town. This view is highlighted again later in this section, but in terms of the potential viability of the development there was clear concern about the impact of empty retail units on the appearance and perception of Forres: in the current economic climate the new development could easily become one of those faceless modern retail ghost areas. The above point also illustrates the substantial overlap between the issue of whether Forres needs the kind of development proposed, and concerns regarding the impact of a retail development on existing businesses and Forres high street. A substantial number of respondents raised strong concerns that the proposed development would have a significant negative impact on existing businesses. This view appears to relate both to the supermarket and non-food retail elements of the proposed development, and indicates that many respondents feel that any development would have a potentially significant negative impact on existing businesses. For many respondents this was an issue for Forres high street specifically, with several suggestions that the proposed development would kill our high street. This was commonly related to a view that the high street is struggling as it is, with references made to the number of empty units and charity outlets on the high street as indicative of the difficulties facing existing businesses. In this context there was some significant concern that the development of Bogton Road would lead to further loss of businesses from Forres high street: This development would further destroy the high street and the easy access it provides. The above comment is also illustrative of a relatively common view that the high street offers specific benefits. A preference for high street based retail over out of town developments is implicit in many comments from those supporting option 1, and indeed there is some explicit reference to the importance of the high street to Forres. In particular the high street is seen as contributing to the character and uniqueness of Forres, qualities which some of those in favour of option 1 see as being jeopardised by the proposed development.

3.13.

3.14.

3.15.

3.16.

Public Consultation: Land at Bogton Road, Forres Report by Craigforth: February 2011

SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS

3.17.

Views on the importance of Forres high street and the extent to which it is already facing significant challenges, are also linked to suggestions that greater support should be offered to existing businesses (rather than greater competition from new development). In this regard a number of respondents suggested that if the proposed sale of land does go ahead then receipts should be used to support existing businesses and to regenerate the high street. This was also a view expressed by some of those in favour of the proposed sale of land. The two issues discussed above are notable for relating at least in part to the specific nature of the proposed development. However, a significant number of comments expressed a more in principle opposition to sale of Common Good land. In particular more than 100 respondents expressed a strong view that Common Good land should be retained for the long-term benefit of Forres residents, rather than being sold for a one-off financial benefit. This reflected a clear view from some respondents that sale of land at Bogton Road should not go ahead in any circumstances, despite a potentially significant capital receipt: the benefits of Common Good land should not always be measured in monetary value. This appeared to be based on a view that as a publicly owned asset the land gives residents an ongoing benefit, which was valued over income from a single financial transaction (the family silver can only be sold once). Indeed some questioned whether any sale could proceed without the approval of residents. For others, views on appropriate use of Common Good land was a significant issue in their opposition to the proposed sale of land. A significant number of respondents suggested that the current open space is most consistent with the spirit of the Common Good Fund, and numerous references were made to residents using land at Bogton Road for recreation and leisure use. It as also suggested that the football club is consistent with this leisure and recreation related land use. In relation to views on the most appropriate use of Common Good land, some opposition to the proposed sale of land appeared to be based on concern that the proposed retail-based development would not offer long-term benefit to Forres. A number of respondents made specific reference to development of community health and/or leisure facilities as offering more benefit to Forres. However it was unclear the extent to which respondents would support any sale of land to develop community facilities, and moreover scepticism was expressed in relation to whether a private developer would be interested in this kind of community-focused development. A number of other specific issues were raised by those supporting option 1, although these were mentioned by significantly fewer respondents than the three issues discussed above. These issues are summarised over the page.

3.18.

3.19.

3.20.

3.21.

3.22.

3.23.

Public Consultation: Land at Bogton Road, Forres Report by Craigforth: February 2011

SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS

3.24.

Around 40 individuals raised specific concerns relating to the developer. Most commonly it was suggested that, as a business, a developer would only be interested in profit which was seen as having potential for conflict with the longer term benefit for Forres. More specifically in relation to Redco Milne, some expressed concern that once land is purchased the developer may alter the proposed development (e.g. for market housing) or sell the land for profit as land values increase. A small number of respondents made reference to the developers conduct in relation to the proposed sale of land, and suggested that they have not presented themselves as trustworthy. This included specific suggestions that the developer had indicated during an earlier consultation exercise that facilities for young people would be provided, but that nothing further had emerged on this topic. Others raised concerns that the developer refused to provide information on which supermarket would be occupying the development. A similar number of those supporting option 1 raised concerns regarding the current consultation process. Most commonly it was suggested that the proposed sale of land should not have been combined in a single option with renegotiation of the lease with Forres Mechanics. A substantial number of those supporting option 1 and indeed some of those who did not express a clear preference specifically stated that they did not support renegotiation of the lease with the football club but rather wished to maintain the status quo. Others felt that there was a lack of information provided to enable residents to make an informed response to the consultation. In particular, reference was made to questions around which supermarket would occupy the new development, and what appropriate terms with the football club would entail. Related to these concerns, some also suggested that it was not appropriate for the planning application to be subject to separate consultation as the use of the land was pertinent to the question of whether the land should be sold. A small number of respondents also made reference to the consultation mechanism. Specifically, concerns were raised regarding potential for abuse of the consultation for example through multiple responses. There were also some queries regarding eligibility for the consultation, such as whether households were restricted to making 1 response only and whether under 18s were eligible. For a small number of residents, these issues appeared to be the basis for concern regarding the extent to which consultation findings would truly influence the Councils decision: this is not a consultation, this is a fait accompli. Around 30 of those supporting option 1 made comments relating to the potential impact of development at Bogton Road on local infrastructure, and other issues relating to the location and nature of the proposed development.

3.25.

3.26.

3.27.

3.28.

3.29.

3.30.

Public Consultation: Land at Bogton Road, Forres Report by Craigforth: February 2011

SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS

3.31.

Impact on transport links and traffic in and around Forres was the most common area of concern for these respondents. This included a suggestion that the introduction of a roundabout or other junction on the A96 would have a disruptive impact on traffic flow, and could effectively negate the value of the bypass. Respondents also made reference to the impact of development in terms of increased traffic flow on access roads to Bogton Road, and within Forres more widely. Several individuals also suggested that the location of the land at Bogton Road would act as a barrier for pedestrian access between the high street and the development; this was seen as a potentially important factor in terms of the development bringing wider benefit by improving custom to existing businesses. Also related to the location and nature of the land, several respondents suggested that drainage and risk of flooding would be worsened by the proposed development. For some this was also related to wider concerns regarding the environmental impact of the development. Some specifically suggested that the loss of green space was too high a price to pay in the context of scepticism regarding the potential value of the development. The fourth specific issue raised by consultation comments related to the impact of development alongside the bypass on the appearance and perception of Forres. In particular, a number of respondents suggested that replacing green space with a supermarket and retail units would have a particularly detrimental impact due to the location of the development as one of the most prominent parts of Forres for those using the A96 bypass. This point was raised in relation to the proposed development as a whole, but was a particularly acute issue for those concerned that retail units may remain empty for a period of time given the current economic climate. The above issues account for the majority of comments made by respondents supporting option 1. However there remained around 100 individuals making other points which did not relate specifically to these issues. It should be noted that in many cases these individuals also raised some of the issues discussed above. Indeed for many respondents the other issues summarised below appeared to be secondary concerns and were typically less of a concern than the potential impact of development on the high street for example. The main other issues being raised through the consultation by those in support of option 1 were: A substantial number of respondents suggested alternative uses of the land which were seen as more appropriate for Common Good land. These included leisure or recreation facilities for younger residents (e.g. leisure centre, bowling, ice rink, skate park), a hotel, a health centre, a community centre, a cinema, or allotments; The extent to which financial gain from any sale of land could be significantly reduced by administration costs associated with the sale, and the need to provide assistance to the football club (even where respondents supported the provision of financial assistance to the club); and

3.32.

3.33.

3.34.

3.35.

Public Consultation: Land at Bogton Road, Forres Report by Craigforth: February 2011

SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS

Some highlighted a perceived need to make use of the former Tesco site in the Bogton Road area before consideration is given to any sale of other land. Those in support of options 2 and 3
3.36.

Perhaps reflecting the smaller number of consultation respondents supporting the proposed sale of land, a more limited range of issues were raised in support of options 2 and 3. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that respondents highlighting the issues discussed below expressed a similar strength of opinion in support of options 2 and 3, as the majority of respondents supporting option 1. Again two issues emerged as the main reasons given in support of the proposed sale of land at Bogton Road. These were a view that the development would help to rejuvenate and modernise Forres, and the importance of the development in supporting Forres economy and creating new jobs. In relation to the potential role of the development in rejuvenating Forres, a greater range and choice of retail was the most common basis given in support of the sale of land. This included quite different benefits and issues being raised in relation to supermarkets and petrol stations, and in relation to non-food retail. In relation to development of a new supermarket and petrol station, these respondents felt that new competition could bring significant benefits to Forres in terms of better value; Tesco prices are beyond belief in Forres. In this regard some respondents indicated a strong preference for the development to bring a new supermarket provider to Forres to the extent that some would withdraw support for the proposed sale of land if the development was occupied by Tesco. There was a strong feeling that this would bring significantly less benefit to Forres. In relation to the non-food retail elements of the development, respondents focus was more on the potential to improve greater choice for residents there was a clear feeling amongst these respondents that Forres is poorly served in this regard. It was also suggested that this element of the development could be important in reducing the need for residents to travel to Elgin or Inverness to access retail. Some respondents also supported the development of new facilities on the basis of being required to meet the needs of a growing population in Forres, and as a means of potentially attracting more visitors and residents to the town. Views here implied a concern that the availability and quality of retail in Forres may currently be a barrier to people visiting or moving to the town. It was suggested that a better choice of more modern facilities could bring benefits in encouraging moves to Forres, and specifically that the location beside the A96 could have benefits in attracting visitors into Forres.

3.37.

3.38.

3.39.

3.40.

3.41.

Public Consultation: Land at Bogton Road, Forres Report by Craigforth: February 2011

SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS

3.42.

In addition to the above specific issues raised by respondents, many comments appeared to suggest a more general view that the kind of development proposed would help to meet a need to modernise Forres. Some suggested that modernisation was required to maintain the town and community, particularly in the context of expected closure of RAF Kinloss: modern progressive thought is required, and hanging onto outdated traditional thought will only see further decline in the town. The impact of the expected closure of RAF Kinloss was also a significant factor in the second key rationale offered in support of options 2 and 3 that development will help to boost Forres economy and create new employment opportunities. This was most commonly linked to a specific perceived need for new employment opportunities in Forres. Many of those in support of the proposed sale of land expressed a clear view that new jobs were vital to sustain the community, and saw significant potential for the proposed development to deliver this. Indeed for some the potential to generate employment, creating a stable and confident environment to live and stay was the key basis for their supporting the proposed sale of land. A significant number of respondents referred to the expected closure of RAF Kinloss in this context, suggesting that the closure would make the need for new employment opportunities particularly urgent for Forres. Significant concern was evident regarding the impact of the RAF base closure on Forres, and support for any development that could mitigate this: with the closure of RAF Kinloss it is imperative that this development gets the go ahead, otherwise Forres will become a ghost town. In addition to the specific potential for new employment, development was also seen as a valuable means of boosting revenue to the local economy. In particular, respondents suggested that encouraging more Forres residents to shop in the town and attracting more visitors to Forres could have significant benefits for the local economy. Again this was seen as particularly important in the context of the expected RAF Kinloss closure and wider economic climate. Results discussed in section 2 make clear that the majority of those in favour of the proposed sale of land also support provision of assistance to Forres Mechanics Football Club. Indeed 86% of those in favour of the proposed sale of land wished to see the club receiving assistance. In this regard a number of comments were received by those supporting options 2 and 3 that the football club should not be disadvantaged by any sale of land or development. Comments make clear that most of those supporting the proposed sale of land feel that it is important that the club is not disadvantaged either financially or in terms of access to facilities. This reflects a number of comments in relation to the importance of the football club to Forres both in terms of activities within the community (e.g. youth sports) but also the image and perception of the town [the football club] is an integral part of the community.

3.43.

3.44.

3.45.

3.46.

3.47.

3.48.

Public Consultation: Land at Bogton Road, Forres Report by Craigforth: February 2011

SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS

3.49.

On this basis, it would appear that most respondents supporting option 3 would like to see assistance provided to the football club to include a substantial financial element. Indeed, as is highlighted earlier in this section a number of those in favour of option 1 indicated that the club should not be financially disadvantaged either through any sale of land or renegotiation of the clubs lease for Mosset Park. In relation to the impact of the proposed sale of land on the football club, there was a common suggestion that any agreement with the developer should include a requirement for the developer to provide new facilities at least to the standard of the present Mosset Park (indeed some suggest this may be an opportunity to secure better facilities for the club). This appeared to be seen as a parallel to other developments where section 75 agreements are in place to require developers to provide specific facilities (although respondents did not make specific reference to section 75 agreements). Other respondents suggested that any sale price agreed with the developer must include sufficient provision to cover development of new facilities ie land value plus the cost of providing facilities for the club. These views, and suggestions that the developer provide facilities to the club specifically, reflect a clear view amongst many of those supporting option 3 that the cost of providing alternative facilities for the football club should be borne by the developer rather than reducing the value realised to the Common Good Fund from the sale of land. Although the above views in support of the football club accounted for the majority of comments from those in favour of the proposed sale of land, there remained a relatively small number of respondents suggesting that the football club should not be compensated by the Council. Typically this was on the basis that the football club was a private entity and as such should not be given what was seen as the special treatment of subsidy from public funds. In addition to the specific issues discussed above, the following other issues were raised through the consultation by those in support of options 2 and 3: A number of those in favour of the proposed sale of land suggested that the inclusion of other facilities as part of the development should be explored, with examples including leisure and sports facilities for young people, and health centre facilities; and It was suggested that an agreement with the developer should include provision for existing Forres businesses to be given the opportunity to take up premises on any new development before they are offered on the open market. Comments relating to Forres Mechanics Football Club

3.50.

3.51.

3.52.

3.53.

3.54.

A significant number of comments received through the consultation made direct reference to Forres Mechanics football club, across respondents supporting each of the three options. Indeed it is interesting to note that some common issues were raised by those opposed to and those in favour of the proposed sale of land, although in some cases respondents took different conclusions from these issues.

Public Consultation: Land at Bogton Road, Forres Report by Craigforth: February 2011

10

SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS

3.55.

A clear view of the importance of the club to the town emerged, particularly in terms of the length of time the club has been associated with Forres, the significant role the club plays in wider perceptions of Forres, and community activities focused around the club. Indeed the great majority of the c150 comments relating to the club expressed some degree of support, and a view that the club should not be adversely affected by any sale of land. Most commonly these views formed the basis for opposition to the proposed sale of land. Here the perceived value of the football club to Forres was often contrasted with a view that the proposed development would bring relatively little benefit to the town [the football club is] a bigger and better asset than more shops. Also reflecting views on the importance of the club, there was a common view amongst those supporting option 1 that the lease agreement relating to Mosset Park should remain unchanged. For a number of respondents this was linked to a concern that as a non-profit organisation, the club is particularly vulnerable to the impact of any increase in costs related to Mosset Park. There was a clear view from these respondents that their support for option 1 should not financially disadvantage the football club. For those in favour of the proposed sale of land, views on the importance of the football club were linked to a strong suggestion that any agreement with the developer should ensure provision is made for a new facility to be provided at no cost to the club. As is discussed earlier in this section, this included suggestions that the developer is specifically required to provide a facility, and suggestions that the price agreed for any sale includes the cost of providing a facility for the club over and above the land value. Finally in relation to the football club, a small number of respondents suggested that on the basis of the local plan the Council is required for example through a developer - to ensure that a replacement is provided for any recreational facility.

3.56.

3.57.

3.58.

3.59.

*-*-*

Public Consultation: Land at Bogton Road, Forres Report by Craigforth: February 2011

11